Jump to content

Do you keep track?


Daysleeper

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I don't get too cranky when I miss anything. What makes me cranky is too MUCH of something - like too much constant contact with people, I get cranky and need time alone. I am having a hard time inverting this to imagine getting cranky and needing time with someone, engaged in a specific activity.

I think one of the things that makes this more divisive is that generally the sexual does not just get cranky. The sexual gets cranky and then projects it on the asexual, in effect, blaming the asexual for the crankiness.

To make an attempt at the AVEN analogy, suppose my internet connection depended on a computer guy. I couldn't go elsewhere - he had to hook me up to the internet and sit there the whole time while I surfed AVEN. Now suppose his hands had arthritis, and hooking up and maintaining the internet connection was distasteful if not downright unpleasant for him. AVEN withdrawal notwithstanding, I simply could not impose my "need" for AVEN on this poor guy. If he was willing to let me on once a week, once a month, or whatever, I would be grateful to him. But if he never wanted to hook me up again I would just learn to live without AVEN, and I would not blame him at all for not filling my needs for me. I cannot think of a single thing that I would not give up in a heartbeat if it caused some chronic discomfort to someone. ESPECIALLY if that someone was my significant other. I just do not see how laying the responsibility for your sexual well-being on another's shoulders is fair in any way.

Now, I understand (I guess) that sex is different because it is a biological drive, and it has some sort of emotional or psychological value to sexuals. But sex also has some emotional and psychological value to asexuals - a negative value. And I think this is part of why it is hard for us to understand why you can't just masturbate.

I do have a question for Bunny (or any sexual): When you get cranky due to lack of sex, do you take that crankiness out on everyone? People at work, friends? Or is it pretty much focused solely on your partner, as the perceived source and arbiter of sex?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I feel like I should correct this "cranky" thing. M51's ex may have been cranky, but lack of sex doesn't usually make *me* cranky. It can range anywhere from sadness to being uncomfortable to just percieving the world as that little bit more gray and pointless. I try not to take it out on anyone, but my boyfriend inevitably gets the brunt of it.

I think my problem is that I have trouble blending the two..the emotional and the physical. I can either take care of myself, and that's enough. I can cuddle, and THAT is also enough.

But I always think when I read a post by a sexual: Why in the world would I want someone else to get me off when I'm more than perfectly capable of doing that myself??

I mean, what exactly during this do you crave? Is it finding out what turns the other on, is it deep philosophical discussion? Is it play, is it dominance issues, is it silence?

Well, for one it feels better (to me) if someone else is involved. Plus, you get to please someone else at the same time they're pleasing you. It's just more intimate and interesting when someone else is involved - though if you don't like being around people, I can't imagine that you'll see that as a positive. :P I like people though, so I like the interactivity.

That must be the disconnect for me. Aside from the obvious thing that I don't find sex fun, that is. I don't get cranky when missing out on ANYTHING like that. Sure, I may miss whatever it is, or wish that I was doing it or think about doing it, but never to the point that I get irritated that I'm not doing it.

See above. And keep in mind, it's a much more intrusive urge than the urge to watch TV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To make an attempt at the AVEN analogy, suppose my internet connection depended on a computer guy. I couldn't go elsewhere - he had to hook me up to the internet and sit there the whole time while I surfed AVEN. Now suppose his hands had arthritis, and hooking up and maintaining the internet connection was distasteful if not downright unpleasant for him. AVEN withdrawal notwithstanding, I simply could not impose my "need" for AVEN on this poor guy. If he was willing to let me on once a week, once a month, or whatever, I would be grateful to him. But if he never wanted to hook me up again I would just learn to live without AVEN, and I would not blame him at all for not filling my needs for me. I cannot think of a single thing that I would not give up in a heartbeat if it caused some chronic discomfort to someone. ESPECIALLY if that someone was my significant other. I just do not see how laying the responsibility for your sexual well-being on another's shoulders is fair in any way.

Now, I understand (I guess) that sex is different because it is a biological drive, and it has some sort of emotional or psychological value to sexuals. But sex also has some emotional and psychological value to asexuals - a negative value. And I think this is part of why it is hard for us to understand why you can't just masturbate.

On the other hand, the computer guy isn't going to feel hurt or abandoned if you go find another computer guy to hook up your internet for you.

Honestly, I see your point. But I don't want to be stuck masturbating for the rest of my life, so I'm not going to date an asexual. It would make me deeply unhappy. I suggest that if you feel so strongly that sex is an awful thing to ask, that you just don't date sexuals, period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say it's a mixture of both. If it were just about the physical, masturbating would take care of it without any trouble. If it were just the emotional, the cuddles would be enough. But neither cuddles nor masturbating really solve the problem - I crave the particular mixture of physical pleasure and emotional closeness that sexuality provides for me.

Wow, my mind just expanded. I'd never thought of it that way before. ;) Thanks.

I think part of it is just that after 3 days or so, I'm having to really deal with the fact that the mutual desire and satisfaction that I really wish for will probably never really happen in my relationship. It's kind of a sad thing to think about.

I don't understand. Are you saying that if you don't have sex at least every 3 days you think that the relationship is not as strong as it should be or is getting worse, or are you saying that you're having sex to avoid thinking about the fact that your relationship will never be as strong as you'd like it to be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand. Are you saying that if you don't have sex at least every 3 days you think that the relationship is not as strong as it should be or is getting worse, or are you saying that you're having sex to avoid thinking about the fact that your relationship will never be as strong as you'd like it to be?

None of the above. I'm saying that *one* quality I want in a relationship will probably never be present in the amount that I'd really prefer. That doesn't say anything about the strength of the rest of the relationship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get cranky when missing out on ANYTHING like that. Sure, I may miss whatever it is, or wish that I was doing it or think about doing it, but never to the point that I get irritated that I'm not doing it.

I wonder if this is because sex is physically addictive, not just psychologically addictive like the Internet or anything else can be. Several chemicals affecting emotion power through the nervous system during sex, as much as in most other 'highs'. Only difference is, sex has the potential to be a very healthy addiction, when the amount and motivation is right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get cranky when missing out on ANYTHING like that. Sure, I may miss whatever it is, or wish that I was doing it or think about doing it, but never to the point that I get irritated that I'm not doing it.

I wonder if this is because sex is physically addictive, not just psychologically addictive like the Internet or anything else can be. Several chemicals affecting emotion power through the nervous system during sex, as much as in most other 'highs'. Only difference is, sex has the potential to be a very healthy addiction, when the amount and motivation is right.

I just posted something to the effect of sex being addictive, actually. But I don't see the difference b/t healthy and unhealthy addictions. Addictions are, by definition, unhealthy. Sure, there are things I wouldn't mind being addicted to - exercise, for example. Being addicted to exercise would mean I would actually get up off my fat butt and get healthy. But just b/c my addiction was driving me to get physically healthy doesn't mean that it's healthy to have an addiction. I'd much rather be able to freely choose something - anything - than feel like I NEED to have/do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just posted something to the effect of sex being addictive, actually. But I don't see the difference b/t healthy and unhealthy addictions. Addictions are, by definition, unhealthy. Sure, there are things I wouldn't mind being addicted to - exercise, for example. Being addicted to exercise would mean I would actually get up off my fat butt and get healthy. But just b/c my addiction was driving me to get physically healthy doesn't mean that it's healthy to have an addiction. I'd much rather be able to freely choose something - anything - than feel like I NEED to have/do it.

I have several problems with this post, first of all being the idea that somehow feeling the urge to do something is the equivalent of not having free choice about it.

I get the urge to eat every day, but I freely choose to eat the amount that goes in my mouth. I freely choose the type of food that goes in it as well. I feel the urge to sing almost every day, because I like it, but I freely choose to open my mouth and do it, or not.

I have the urge to have sex every day, but I freely choose to indulge it or not. If I choose not to for long enough, the discomfort builds up to the point that release seems like a better option than suffering through it any more, but it's still a choice. It's not a compulsion. I mean sure, I could decide to be absolutely celibate for the rest of my life, but why? I wouldn't see the point.

The other thing is - I'm starting to get the feeling here that the "addiction" label is being used in order to avoid dealing with the fact that sexuality is natural and inherent in most people. If you can call it an addiction, you are free to look at it as something that can be kicked - and if it can be kicked, then logically it *should* be. It seems almost like a way to distance yourself from sexuals - and a sneaky way to *again* insinuate that we're wrong, bad, and selfish for feeling the way we do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get cranky when missing out on ANYTHING like that. Sure, I may miss whatever it is, or wish that I was doing it or think about doing it, but never to the point that I get irritated that I'm not doing it.

I wonder if this is because sex is physically addictive, not just psychologically addictive like the Internet or anything else can be. Several chemicals affecting emotion power through the nervous system during sex, as much as in most other 'highs'. Only difference is, sex has the potential to be a very healthy addiction, when the amount and motivation is right.

I just posted something to the effect of sex being addictive, actually. But I don't see the difference b/t healthy and unhealthy addictions. Addictions are, by definition, unhealthy. Sure, there are things I wouldn't mind being addicted to - exercise, for example. Being addicted to exercise would mean I would actually get up off my fat butt and get healthy. But just b/c my addiction was driving me to get physically healthy doesn't mean that it's healthy to have an addiction. I'd much rather be able to freely choose something - anything - than feel like I NEED to have/do it.

I mean that the mild 'addiction' (there are several slightly varying definitions) to sex is not going to do the body harm - quite the opposite. Sex is a very healthy activity. An addiction to alcohol, for example, is unhealthy not necessarily because of the addiction process itself (almost every regular drinker has a mild addiction that doesn't disrupt life but is physiologically evident), but because alcohol consumption harms the body. Both exercise and sex are actually healthy to be mildly addicted to. Very fit people who experience urges to go for jogs are also experiencing a mild addiction. It is actually good for them if it leads them to a healthy amount of exercise. If it leads to an amount of exercise that does more harm than good to their overall well being, then I would call it an unhealthy addiction, and the same would go for sex (a kind of exercise). Humans are designed in such a way as to become addicted to any activity that produces endorphins, some of them beneficial, so I don't think that calling something a form of addiction is necessarily criticising it. However, I realise that the word has negative connotations, so perhaps I should have said this earlier.

The other thing is - I'm starting to get the feeling here that the "addiction" label is being used in order to avoid dealing with the fact that sexuality is natural and inherent in most people. If you can call it an addiction, you are free to look at it as something that can be kicked - and if it can be kicked, then logically it *should* be. It seems almost like a way to distance yourself from sexuals - and a sneaky way to *again* insinuate that we're wrong, bad, and selfish for feeling the way we do.

See above. :) I wouldn't suggest anyone kick sexuality anymore than I'd suggest they kick regular exercise. I see how you'd feel like this though. The asexuals here, ironically, talk about sex quite a lot, and it would be tiresome to point out continuously that our feelings and need to intellectualise sexuality don't mean we think we're superior. Personally sometimes I forget to imagine myself in the position of a sexual reading my posts, which isn't always the easiest thing to imagine anyway. No offence intended. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna jump in quickly to the addiction/urge discussion to say that I've always thought of a sexual drive more in terms of 'hunger' than 'addiction'. That is to say, the urge isn't to get a "fix" to get me through the day so that I don't get jittery and irritable. It's more of a sensation in my whole body that I'm physically and mentally aware of, just like the sensation of hunger. The important distinction is how we view the urge. Of course, hunger is something we can't "get rid of" but we don't place a value judgement on it because it's a basic need. And of course, as bunnyk said, we can choose how and when to indulge the urge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually sexual addiction is a commonly accepted disease, often compared to alcoholism and other drug addictions. There is even a SAA - sex addicts anonymous. I am not saying that all sexuals are sex addicts. I am saying that there is such a thing as addiction to sex. Several prominent sexual psychologists (or psychiatrists, I can never remember which is which) have written about it. Get on amazon.com or bn.com and type in sex addiction and see how many books come up. I've only read one of them.

Okay let me say it again because I know someone is going to jump my case. I am not saying all sexuals, most sexuals, or any sexuals on this board are sex addicts. I am just saying that sexual addiction is a recognized psychological disease.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually sexual addiction is a commonly accepted disease, often compared to alcoholism and other drug addictions. There is even a SAA - sex addicts anonymous. I am not saying that all sexuals are sex addicts. I am saying that there is such a thing as addiction to sex. Several prominent sexual psychologists (or psychiatrists, I can never remember which is which) have written about it. Get on amazon.com or bn.com and type in sex addiction and see how many books come up. I've only read one of them.

I'm actually aware of this, and I'd never deny that some people can be addicted to sex. All I'm saying is that comparing your normal, average sexual's drive to have sex to an addiction is off base, and I think for *some* people here, it's just another way to keep reinforcing what they already think about sexuals. Know what I mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I see what both camps are saying. Sexuality is normal. Our closest living animals relatives, the bonobos, have sex several times a day. Our other closets living animal relatives, the chimpanzees, only have sex when the females are in heat. So it makes sense that somewhere in between is normal human sexuality. Sex and sexuality are not bad.

But on the other hand, having been on the receiving end of some very negative ways of expressing that sexuality...it is kind of hard for an asexual to understand why you sexual types can't just give it a rest every once in a while. The sexual craving that causes many sexuals to act inconsiderately of their lesser or non-libidoed partners does kind of lend itself to the comparison to an addiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...